Posted on 07/06/2007 4:19:18 PM PDT by tuesday afternoon
The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage. And that's great. But they called us "homosexuals" throughout the piece, and that's not great. It's degrading and offensive and archaic.
I've written about this before, and some have disagreed. But I'd argue that those who disagree don't understand the nuance of language or of this particular phrase. Ask any gay person, regardless of whether they agree or disagree that the word "homosexual" is archaic and offensive, whether they use the term "gay" or "homosexual" to described themselves. I.e., "I'm gay" or "I'm a homosexual." Just ask them. Unless they're living under a rock, gay people rarely if ever use the word homosexual. (My gay-friendly straight friends, however, use the term all the time. In the same way that I still hear friends use the word "oriental.")
Why? First, because it's become archaic. Usage changes, and just as Negro and colored changed to black and African-American, just as oriental gave way to Asian, homosexual has become gay. But second, and more importantly, the word homosexual is offensive in the same manner as negro and oriental. Sometimes archaic words sting. In the case of homosexual, I think the main problem is three-fold. First, the clinical nature of the term. It's a scientific word that mildly dehumanizes gay people by suggesting that they have a medical or psychological condition. Second, the words "homo" and "sex." Both words connote something negative, or at least something that shouldn't be spoken out loud, to a lot of Americans. Third, and most importantly, homosexual is the word the religious right uses expressly and uniquely in an effort to dehumanize gays. Anti-gay religious right activists have said publicly that they will not use the word "gay" - rather, they insist on using "homosexual." Why? Because for some reason or another they figure that the word homosexual helps their cause. And while I don't agree with the religious right on many things, their ability to gay-bash swiftly and effectively is unqestioned. If they think the word gay helps us and the word homosexual hurts us, who am I to argue?
Again, I don't mean to opinionated about it, but if you don't hear the negative nuance in the word homosexual, it's either because you're not listening, or more likely, you don't have an ear for language. There's a reason that colored and Negro and oriental weren't offensive terms years ago, yet are today. The nuance of words changes over time. And while gays were once thought to be mentally disturbed - that all changed in 1973 - the language has not changed since that time.
It's time it did.
PS Don't believe me? Read what a communications professional has to say about this. (Actually, I hadn't read his piece until after I wrote mine, but the logic is remarkably similar.) Also, check out this recent editorial in the lead gay newspaper in the US.
Then they have to stop using the word “gay”. That’s our word. Not theirs’.
What if I don’t like being called straight?
And I don’t.
Mrs VS
Yeah or the short form....Don’t mo me.
Be careful what you wish for...
Correspondent: Mrs Truman, could you get the president to stop saying ‘manure’ so much?
The First Lady: Honey, it took me thirty years to get him to say ‘manure’!
I love Tony Romo. Does that make me a Romosexual?
Answer: Not quite yet LOL
They successfully redefined the word GAY, wonder if they’ll succeed with the word homosexual.
Sodomite is quite accurate imo.
“this professional homosexual is full of crap”
Yeah, in more ways than one. After all, it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.
As a student of the English language, I deeply resent how more than forty years ago homosexuals brutally hijacked the once-pleasant word `gay’, which used to mean `happy, carefree, lighthearted’, and often described those meetings and occasions when a man and a woman met and fell in love with one another.
Tread carefully, FReepers. Gays own this debate and can make their opponents suffer.
Grieviously.
ping...
Mr. Aravosis is so 20 minutes ago. I can't believe he's so far behind the curve. The word "gay" now means something that's stupid, pointless, or unfair.
"That's so GAY!".
Are you sure you want to go there, Mr. Aravosis?
Homosexual is the correct, descriptive term. If these little drama queens don’t like it they can kiss my butt.
Er, wait a minute, skip that last part.
They can take a flying leap at the moon.
Don’t like being called straight?
One of their favorite terms for heteros is ‘breeder’
how do you like that derogatory appellation?
btw--i use the word Asian instead of oriental... and i use black instead of African American because i'm not always sure if the person to whom i am referring is actually African American...
Queer has actually come full circle and is accepted in academic circles, i.e. Queer Studies, to represent anybody (lesbians, transexuals, etc.) who are outside of the norm.
Weird. 'Homo' just means 'same,' like in homogenized milk. As for 'sex', it's the faggots who choose to define their entire being by where they like to stick their Kuciniches. It's nobody else's fault that they trumpet their erotic fetishes so loudly that nobody can avoid knowing about them.
I vote for calling them "nuanced."
Funny, I didn’t hear the word occidental in the piece.
Not that I’m keeping score, but there is:
1- mention of hyphenates
1- use of the word nuance
But who’s counting?
personally, i do not like what the homosexuals have done to the word, “gay.”
Thanks for posting this. I had no idea the word homosexual was offensive.
I’m going to use the word homosexual at least 10 times a day from now on.
They’re not going to obscure language further on my watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.